Abd, Why care you what I think. Do, or do it not! Talk incessantly about it, do not. Herh herh herh.
http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/index.php Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Heat is the principal signature of the reaction > > At 11:37 AM 10/31/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > >Enjoyed your response. Admittedly, my preliminary thoughts on your > objective > >is that it is way too ambitious. > > In what way? Failure modes: > > 1. I'm too scattered and disorganized to actually get it together. > While this is the most likely failure mode, it seems I'm sufficiently > motivated to pull this off, and I'm getting support. Donations are > starting to appear, significant ones. I still have to risk my meager > savings and my American Express credit, but ... this is fun. > > 2. I can't get a decent replication going. Unlikely. Alpha track > findings are, in my view, shaky, so far. However, that's not the case > with neutrons; problem with the neutron findings is that solid > replications are sparse. But not non-existent, and I intend to > rapidly up the number of cells where there is intensive monitoring > for neutrons by an order of magnitude. It's cheap and easy to do, > once one is set up to do the codeposition. I've an idea that could be > very interesting, and it's so cheap and so obviously harmless to the > effect that I'm going to do it right from the start. I'm going to > line the experimental cell, the inside, with commercial (cheap!) > CR-39. I may get fogging, but unless the fogging suppresses the LENR > reaction, I don't care. I'll etch the surface away, I'll be looking > for buried neutron evidence, and the characteristics of the tracks > will tell me what direction the particles came from. > > 3. I get a replication going, but nobody wants to buy the cells, so > nobody uses them for replication and so it's all useless. Also > unlikely, I think. These cells are going to be cheap. I'll be > surprised if my price for them -- which includes my margin! -- is > much over $100. It could be quite a bit less when I have a settled > design. This includes everything needed for a replication except for > fixed equipment, i.e., constant-current power supply(s), monitoring > equipment, and re-usable sensors. The Galileo protocol said "The > minimum materials cost for this experiment is about $700." I don't > get where that came from, it was drastically overstated even for now, > and the costs for the most expensive things, the platinum wire and > the deuterium oxide, have gone up in price substantially. > > 4. "They" shut me down. Not a failure, unless perhaps "they" manage > to make it look like some accident. And this project does not > actually depend on me. By the time that "they" would be interested, > it would be too late. It's already too late, probably. I'm not doing > anything that someone in contact with these ideas couldn't do with > moderate effort and a few thousand dollars to invest. I don't believe > in an anti-LENR conspiracy on that level. Nasty political > machinations, yes. That happened and could happen again. > > 5. I completely screw up, I think I have a replicable experiment, I > put together the kits, and they don't work. Never mind the fact that > the early "customers" will be, in a sense, partners in this, some > might even literally be partners. I'm not likely to sell with > substantial marketing effort kits that don't work. Definitely there > are mistakes I could make. I plan to pre-mix the chemicals, it's > easier for moderate production and avoids the need to measure small > weights, I can then dispense a known quantity of heavy water and it > will be ready for use as electrolyte for one cell, and I'll sell > containers of that size. So what if I pick a container that > contaminates the solution? Or make some other mistake? Well, the > cells I test myself are going to be *exactly* what I'd sell if I were > to start selling at that point. Down to the packaging and storage. > Something could still happen, but it's not likely. > > 6. Oh. By "too ambitious" you mean that it actually convinces Richard > Garwin. Well, I don't really care. Richard Garwin could not affect my > market, and if he actually were to attack the project, it would > probably increase sales. More likely, no effect. > > > I fear it probably wouldn't change anyone's > >mind other than the already converted, not really, and particularly not > the > >hard-core skeptics. i.e. "...so what if the CR-39 appears to show lots > of > >neutron tracks." > > And, then, this is confirmed with bubble detectors? And there are > copious controls? What is being described is a skeptic who would not > be convinced by *any* evidence. They exist, but they are not my > problem. Garwin wanted to see something of a certain scale. It's > obvious that this is a different question than the basic science. > Look, I could brew a cup of tea with a cold fusion cell, just crank > up the input power to make it hot enough. Trivial. "But that wouldn't > be excess energy!" Of course not. But you could drink the tea, using > the cell. Wrong question, wrong problem. Brewing a cup of tea would > require, if one insists on excess energy, an Arata-type cell, and > even then, you could brew tea from the heat of formation of palladium > deuteride. Okay, an Arata cell that stays hot enough to brew tea. > > I wouldn't want one of those in my house, I think. Dangerously hot, > and incredibly expensive, probably. > > Okay, a technique that produces excess power in the form of > electricity. It doesn't exist. If you could get something to do that, > you are rich. Filthy rich, probably. I'm not going to wait for it to > happen. It may never happen, that's a real possibility. And if we > don't have reliable demonstrations of the science involved, based on > my conversations with Jed, it isn't going to happen. Venture > capitalists are usually way too careful with their money. As they > should be, or they would soon lose it. > > > One can be sure those uppity physics graduate students > >would come up with excuses to explain it all away, like > "contamination." > >After all, it's just a #$&*# kit being sold in stores like WALL MART!!! > Not > >a real science experiment! Yada-yada. > > Contamination. Okay, great. What contamination? Here is a kit. So > somebody claims contamination, that I'm selling a commercial product > and it's "contaminated." My, my. I could be really nasty with that, > it's libel, with possible real financial damage. Tort liability, > easily shown in a court. But I wouldn't be nasty. Instead, I'd offer > the libelous one an opportunity and a deal: they buy a few kits, and > they use every means to analyze them that they want to use. If they > show contamination that could affect the results, I'll not only > refund the costs of the kits, but might be willing to pay -- I'd have > to think about this -- a reward for their valuable work. (I don't > expect to be flush with cash, so, unfortunately, this couldn't be a > big reward.) They would promise to release to the public the results > of any testing that they do, in sufficient detail that anyone else > could replicate their work. And if they don't accept this offer of > settlement in compromise, I'd sue them. Sometimes you gotta do what > you gotta do, I'd at that point be looking for donations to fund > legal expenses. And this would provide an opportunity for everyone > offended by what happened in this field over the last twenty years to > get a little satisfaction, to toss in a few bucks. > > Besides, the kit contents will be thoroughly documented. I'll be > selling the materials for roughly what it would cost someone to buy > them themselves, not a great deal less. So someone doubts that this > works, they will have a very thorough, very detailed protocol to > follow, more detailed than the Galileo protocol was, which seems, I > believe, to have been adequate for starters. > > I would never have come up with all this just by myself. Discussing > this openly, listening to all the comments, has caused me to refine > the ideas, step by step, making it much more likely, I believe, that > when I actually run a cell (I presently estimate not more than two > months from now), it's likely to work, unless the general community's > understanding of the science if way off. Even though I'm smart, and I > know it, I'm not depending on myself as anything other than a > reasonably intelligent nexus for this activity. I make my own > decisions about how to spend my own time and my own money. Krivit > points out in the Galileo report that getting a bunch of > experimenters to agree on a protocol was like herding cats. From his > mouth to my ears. I like cats, but I don't put them in charge of what > I do. You are all my watch-cats, and if you yowl, I'll look and see > what's there. > > This is all actually FA/DP theory, by the way, organizational > structure is my own cup of tea, and I'm brewing some with this > project, just as I was with Wikipedia. Wikipedia *really* disliked > being experimented with, I wasn't the first to end up blocked over > harmless experimentation, a sociology professor ended up in the same > position. > > FA/DP theory is about how to facilitate the function of communities > to make them smarter, collectively, than any of the individual > members. Regardless of scale. It's known how to do it on a small > scale, already, though most people aren't familiar with the techniques. > > >That's why I wished someone could come up with a "kit" that would > actually > >be capable of heating a pot of tea. > > I described how to do this. It's trivial, as McKubre said, and, in > fact, he claimed on the Sixty Minutes show that they could have done > it many times over. That's a bit of puffery, because, while it's > true, there would have been some cold pots of tea! And some that were > brewed. That's why Garwin added his qualification. The cup of tea is > brewed, and then another is brewed. And, presumably, he's watching > it. And somehow it's clear that this is not input power. It was > polemic from the beginning, on both sides. Cups of tea and net energy > production are both nice, but not about science itself, rather about > commercial implications other than the commercial trick I'm playing. > I'm not selling energy, I'm selling science. Not everyone wants to > buy science, but it doesn't take "everyone" to make a commercial > project successful, merely enough customers to cover the expenses and > justify the investments. > > But what these kits will do is to start to create a community of > people who have seen the effects for themselves. Many of them young > people. This is for the future, not just for today, not just for the > "graybeards" who refused to shut up and go away in 1989. I'm > dedicating this to them and to their memory. Even if they were wrong > on some details, they were right to persist. In fact, even if somehow > this all turns out to be some very strange combination of coincidence > and artifact, they were still right. The repression of cold fusion > was *wrong*, it should never have happened, and that kind of thing > should never again happen; if my overall work is successful, it will > become increasingly difficult to suppress valid research. And, in > fact, increasingly easy to identify and nail down artifact. > > > In a sense, it's all about the SHOW. I > >suspect the political statement would make more of an impact than the > >scientifically precise one. IMHO, most Joe six-Pack's out there > (including > >our esteemed congressmen) are not likely to be capable of understanding > the > >significance of what all those "tracks" embedded within the CR-39 strip > >signify. > > Joe six-pack is obviously not my market. However, Joe may have a son > or daughter who wants to try this. That kid will explain to their dad > whatever their dad needs to know to open his wallet. The dad is not > prejudiced against cold fusion, the dad might spend the money on > zero-point energy or power-your-car-with-water or polywater or > whatever bug the kid gets stuck on, as long as it isn't *too > expensive.* Consider, if there were a ZPE kit that worked, and that > hadn't successfully been shown to be artifact, it would actually be > scientifically valuable to check it out, confirm the effect, and > maybe explore some parameters. It wouldn't be a waste, the kid would > learn something about science and the scientific method, the real > scientific method, not the bastardized version that depends on > "experts" and "established theory." Kids are going to need to learn > all that established theory, if it is in their field of interest, but > I khope that they never forget that theory is theory and is never > actually "proven," and may always be subject to exceptions or > "specification." It merely becomes a useful peg to hang your hat on. > Don't hang yourself on it! > > >Also, who really thinks Garwin would change his mind if everyone mailed > in > >their sheets of CR-39 to his offices, allegedly containing all those > pesky > >neutron tracks? > > Good idea. I'll provide addressed envelopes for them. Seriously, as > to the results of those customers who are willing to participate, the > results will be amalgamated and published. There will be hosts of > images of CR-39 and LR-115 and other evidences. Let me dream a > little, because this is speculative: there will be videos, with > sound, showing little spots of light, maybe 10 microns across, with a > pop! when it winks on. There will be images of associated SSNTDs, > showing tracks characteristic of neutrons and of no other reasonably > likely cause. And, if I'm lucky, there will be published papers by > replicators with experience and credentials. I'll be making it easier > for them, "using the standard LENR kit number A-3 provided by Lomax > Design Associates, following protocol A3.012 as published by them and > available at [URL]." That would replace quite a few paragraphs in a > research paper, as well as replacing tons of work by them, allowing > them to focus on the details or explorations interested them. Some of > them might be able to do instantaneous helium analysis. Some might be > able to do many things that the amateurs wouldn't be capable of. Some > might explore the process space, varying D?H ratio, using depleted > deuterium water, cathode construction, any of countless possibilities. > > >Somehow, I get the feeling his position wouldn't budge one > >iota. He would just smile and sit back with that all-knowing smile on > his > >face, just like he did on 60 minutes. > > Lots of people saw that smile as "smug," not as "all-knowing." Truth > will out. > > >I bet he'd reply with something > >soothingly sage-like like, "Those aren't really neutron tracks... You > have > >to be a real physicists to understand how absurd it is to even consider > the > >opinion that those tracks might actually be neutron tracks. Now go > along and > >write a story about unicorns." > > Thus offending all the young kids who tried it and saw results, not > to mention showing himself up as being stuck on a level that would be > bordering on senility. Would the media even give him more attention? > > My kids (girls, 6 and 8) tell me about Unicorn Land. They tell all > kinds of stories about Ogie the Ogre who lives there and eats > unicorns, and how they have managed to frustrate Ogie in various > ways. They claim to get up in the middle of the night, when everyone > else is sleeping, and go through the secret passage into Unicorn > Land. They also say that the existence of Unicorn Land is a secret, > and the only reason they are telling me is that they know that nobody > would believe me. They don't mind if I know, because they know I'd be > nice to the unicorns and I'd never insult them, or my kids, by > claiming that "Unicorns don't exist." > > Of course they exist. Somewhere. People who think they have it all > nailed, that they understand everything, except perhaps for a few > inconsequential details, understand very little, in fact. Reality is > vaster than they can possibly imagine. On the other hand, I'm not > investing in unicorns. Unless my kids write a book, I might invest in > that.
